Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

[Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]>]

From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear

In a sense, the proposal is vaguely reminiscent of our own arrangements.  In particular it seems that the names community also wants to a customer relationship with the IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and to have the choice to change providers, should that ever become necessary.

MM: That is correct. I hope this community understands the importance of doing that.

First, if all functions are meant to be transferred to the PTI, it seems that the IAB would have to agree to an assignment, per the terms of RFC-2860.[2]  Second, since for the first time the naming community would have a choice in whether they wish to change IFO, we have to ask the question, “What if they did?”  What would happen to the PTI?  What, in particular, are the funding implications?  It has always been possible for ICANN or the IAB to terminate the arrangement.  If that happened, however, the IAB and IAOC would have to work with ISOC to determine a funding source for a new IFO for protocol parameters.

MM: If I understand your comment, you are assuming that if the naming community abandons PTI for another IFO, then the IETF would too. This is not necessarily true. IETF could continue to rely on PTI for its own IANA functions even if it did not provide the naming functions if it wanted to. If that were the case, the total budget for PTI would probably to change, but it is not necessarily true that the ICANN affiliate would crease to want to perform the protocol functions as before. However, if PTI were performing badly enough that the names community wanted to leave it, then presumably the protocols people might have concerns, too. But if they did, they would still have to face the funding issues.

It's worth noting that NRO Executive Council has stated that they wish to retain a direct relationship with ICANN, and NOT the PTI[4].  The IAB could do the same, but then it seems to me that the value of the PTI itself is diminished.  And so that

MM: This was a mistake, in my opinion, but it was motivated by uncertainty as to the status of PTI. I would view it as a short-term arrangement that, as PTI matured, would change to a direct relationship. But even if it did not, it does not alter the great value of finally creating a clear separation between the names policy arrangements and the IANA functions. If NRO is short-sighted enough to want to remain in a direct relationship with ICANN, even after its recent treatment by ICANN legal, I suppose that is it’s right, but we shouldn’t allow it to undermine reform in the naming area.

Having the burden of funding shift to another source can itself be a source of instability.

MM: If you don’t choose to move IANA away from ICANN there is no need for a “funding shift.”
If you did choose to do so under RFC 2860 then there would be, and this would be true REGARDLESS of whether there was a PTI or not. So the logic of this comment escapes me.

  *   Under this new arrangement, does it make sense to continue the relationship with ICANN as it stood before or does it make sense to go directly to PTI?
MM: You should embrace the new arrangement and go directly to PTI. But I am sure ICANN will love it if you do not, as you will reinforce their sense that the IANA functions are something they own and should be considered a presumptive monopoly of theirs. And long term, that will not be a positive thing for any of the operational communities, if you consider the bargaining power